SynthesisPublic health nutrition2025
Systematic review of fruit and vegetable voucher interventions for pregnant women and families with young children.
Synthesis in Public health nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis systematic review aimed to explore the impact of food voucher schemes during pregnancy and early life on fruit and vegetable (F&V) consumption and explore experiences of schemes.
designSix electronic databases and grey literature sources were searched. Interventional, observational, qualitative and mixed methods studies published from January 2000 to April 2024 in English were included.
settingFood voucher interventions targeting F&V intake.
participantsLow-income pregnant women and families with young children (aged under 5 years).
results7344 peer reviewed records and 103 grey literature documents were screened. Sixteen peer reviewed studies (across eighteen reports) and eight grey literature documents met the inclusion criteria. All studies took place in the UK or the USA. There was a lack of consistency across primary quantitative outcomes. Overall, F&V voucher schemes did appear to increase fruit and/or vegetable consumption, but confidence in this finding was low. Qualitative data were more consistent. F&V vouchers were used in three main ways; as a financial benefit to subsidise food already being purchased, to increase the quantity or variety of F&V purchased, or as a safety net, to be used to ensure that the family had something to eat.
conclusionsF&V vouchers may increase F&V intake and are positively received by recipients. This review also highlights some of the difficulties that researchers face in evaluating the impact of public health measures to improve population health. It is clear that more high-quality research is required to better understand the impacts of F&V vouchers on individual outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.